e-Government and State Reform: Policy Dilemmas for Europe
Manuel Baptista
GOPA-Cartermill, Brussels, Belgium
mbaptista@gopa-cartermill.com
Abstract: e-Government policies are both a sub-set and a driver of government and public sector reform, and their
implementation raises or amplifies a number of political issues in a wide number of areas. Particularly, the
implementation of the current transnational e-Government agenda raises important political issues, including the further
privatisation of the public sphere and the changing role of government. Moreover, conflicting policy elements within the
agenda magnify the need for more public debate on the desired outcomes of e-Government.
Keywords: e-Government, governance, state reform, public sector reform, European Union

Since the 1990’s, a transnational e-Government
agenda has emerged resulting from strategic
initiatives taken by a number of leading countries,
multinational corporations, the European Union
and international organisations. This transnational
agenda and its commonly accepted principles are
now inspiring supranational, national and regional
e-Government programmes throughout the world.
As noted by Michalopoulos (2003, p. 6),
“international
organisations
are
powerful
mechanisms of spread public policies and this is
particularly apparent in the case of administrative
reform that took place in the last two decades
towards managerialisation”. In this context, the
use
of
information
and
communication
technologies (ICT) by European governments
seems to be currently driven by five main goals:
• Transforming
public
administrations:
improving the efficiency of public
administrations, reducing their size and
cutting costs.

1. Introduction: e-Government and
State transformation
In many European countries, the design and
implementation of e-Government strategies
convey a new vision for the entire public sector. It
has often been suggested that e-Government has
the potential to transform governance and the
relationships between State, citizens and
businesses. However, as considerable amounts of
public funds are invested in e-Government
projects, the outcomes of their implementation –
in terms of value for money, public value, and
overall contribution to good governance - often
remain unclear. Perhaps more importantly, the
very strategic goals of e-Government are often
blurred by a screen of hype and catch-all
concepts such as information society or
modernisation. Combined with an obvious lack of
public debate in many countries, these results in
uncertainty regarding the strategic goals of eGovernment and their relationships with the
objectives of State reform.
In this context, two general questions emerge:
what does government want from e-Government,
and what do citizens and business want from it?
While it appears that most governments know
what they want, at least in the short term (e.g.
cost cutting, efficiency savings, and increased
control over citizens and businesses), it appears
that most users have limited awareness of both
the potential benefits of e-Government and its
associated risks. Moreover, most users fail to
grasp the wider strategic implications of eGovernment and its dynamic relationship to State
reform objectives. More public debate on the
desired outcomes of e-Government and on the
strategic goals pursued via e-Government
programmes is thus a pre-requisite for informed
decision-making and public opinion formation in
this area.

Putting
services
online:
delivering
government services over the Internet
and other electronic channels.

•

Improving the image of government:
increasing the transparency of the public
sector and creating a more open,
participative decision-making process.

•

Increasing government control over
society: re-enforcing control over citizens,
businesses and taking action against
perceived security threats.

•

Providing a symbolic direction for society:
appear to be modern, working towards
progress
by
following
existing
technological trends.
These issues should be publicly debated and
dealt with by the political system before major
strategic e-Government choices are made.
However, this is rarely the case, as the
transnational e-Government agenda provides a
number of obvious pre-made choices deemed to
be applicable to all situations regardless of

political preferences and often presented as the
inevitable result of technological progress.
Nonetheless, there is a number of conflicting
policy elements within the agenda, such as
‘increased government transparency’ versus
‘increased citizen surveillance’, which undermine
its coherence.

new decision-making processes as well
as the daunting task of effectively bringing
the EU closer to citizens.

1.2 e-Government: working definition
For the purpose of this paper, the definition of eGovernment
provided
in
the
European
Commission Communication ‘The Role of eGovernment for Europe's Future’ will be used:
[e-Government is] the use of information
and communication technologies in public
administrations
combined
with
organisational change and new skills in
order to improve public services and
democratic processes and strengthen
support to public policies (European
Commission 2003, p. 7).
This definition is quite wide and includes aspects
that are fundamental for successful use of ICT,
such as organisational change and user skills. It
does not assign a value to ICT or e-Government
per se, but relates them to a wider effort to
support public policies.

1.1 Global political context
A number of important geo-political events, sociopolitical trends, and technological developments –
as well as their impact in terms of ideological
references and widely shared political views have not only paved the way for the emergence of
a transnational e-Government agenda, but also
influenced its content over the years - sometimes
in contradictory ways. Such events and
developments include the following:
• Fall of the Berlin Wall (1989): this set the
stage for the expansion of American
influence throughout the world, the
ideological hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon
mix of liberal democracy and free
markets, and the acceleration of the
globalisation of the world economy.
• The universalisation of the Internet (mid1990’s): the relative universalisation of
personal computers and the Internet in
industrialised countries has created the
technological and societal pre-conditions
for the emergence of e-Government and
e-democracy models and services. The
Internet and ICT revolution brought the
communications phenomenon to occupy
a central place in European societies.
• Approval of the EU Lisbon Agenda
(March 2000): widespread use of ICTs in
society, including the development of eGovernment, is seen as the key enabler
for further competitiveness, job creation
and sustainable development.
• Terrorist attacks in the United States
(September 2001): the terrorist attacks of
11 September 2001 have decisively
contributed to shift the political priorities in
the United States towards security - or at
least the appearance of security threatening the delicate balance between
State control and security on one hand,
and civil liberties and human rights on the
other. Together with the so-called war on
terror, the security and control agenda
has quickly crossed the Atlantic.
• Enlargement of the European Union (May
2004): the enlargement to 25 Member
States is likely to magnify the practical
and political difficulties of on-going and
future EU integration processes,
highlighting the need for deep reform,

www.ejeg.com

2. Beyond technological determinism:
what is at stake?
The technological aspects of e-Government have
often relegated the debate to a community of
experts from the public, academic and industry
sectors. We believe that the political aspects of eGovernment should be brought to a more public
debate. What is really at stake in the
implementation of e-Government is the redefinition of the public sector, the role of
government, and the relationship between public
authorities and citizens and businesses. In this
respect, the e-Government agenda is not really
new, but it enables, magnifies, and accelerates
the implementation of public sector reforms that
have been at work – both in theoretical and
practical terms – since the 1970’s, and particularly
since the 1980’s in the so-called Western world.
Such reforms signal a shift towards liberal
ideologies, slowly driving European governments
away from the Welfare State and pushing the
public domain into the private sphere. This longterm shift appears to be a fact of life, beyond any
possible choice: “the reinvention of government or
the New Public Management is considered as an
inevitable convergence, as the only one left
option” (Michalopoulos 2003, p. 5), echoing the
concept of “the end of history” (Fukuyama 1992).
Although the managerialisation process of the
public sector began in the Anglo-Saxon countries,
reform towards a smaller, more efficient and less
expensive government is now a common theme

across the European Union. Indeed, the EU
Member States – and the European Union itself –
are currently engaged in a joint effort towards
what has been described as the “competitive
state” (Palan-Abbott, 1996). As noted by Toonen,
T. and Raadschelders, J. (1997):

of the future role of government – and of the
definition of public interest remains open to
debate. In spite of resistance to change in some
quarters, it appears that most citizens and socioeconomic agents are in favour of a public sector
that is less bureaucratic, more transparent,
productive and cost-efficient. However, the issue
is not that simple - it’s not like turning a noncompetitive business into a competitive one - and
it entails the question of the very nature of
government. In rough terms, the e-Government
debate may lead us to a more fundamental choice
between a privatised government (in which most
issues are dealt with according to commercial
relationships and principles, with services paid for
by clients) and a traditional, public government (in
which many services considered to be of public
interest are provided to citizens and businesses
according to a variety of criteria not necessarily
linked to commercial considerations).

Whether it is the British New Public Management
(NPM) movement, the Clinton-Gore attempt at
Reinventing Government or World Bank and
OECD reports on Public Management Reform,
many of the same items, slogans and principles
seem to be returning in various cases. A dominant
presupposition, though increasingly challenged, is
that within this process the Anglo-Saxon countries
(Great Britain; Australia; New Zealand; Canada)
have taken the lead. Gradually it is becoming
clear, however, that the Northern European
Welfare States of Scandinavia and the Benelux
have been engaged in drastic restructuring efforts
as well […] France, Italy and Spain are also
engaged in rather substantial public sector and
government reform enterprises, be it also not
necessarily along the same lines as the
Commonwealth countries.

In our view a third option is possible, which would
allow the development of a more efficient public
service – partly fuelled by ICT and e-Government
services – without necessarily leading to a
dramatic shrinking of the public sphere or
representing a step towards compromising the
rights of citizens and the solidarity principles that
are characteristic of many European societies and
the European supranational project.

However, some authors have argued that the
radical influence of New Public Management over
public sector organisation and methods could be
overtaken and superseded by the “holistic”
demands of e-Government and the rise of the
“Digital State Paradigm” (Dunleavy and Margetts
2000). Regardless of the relationships between eGovernment programmes and underlying theories
and paradigms, the e-Government drive can and
should be used as an enabler and multiplier of
public policy. Thus, it is important not to hide the
implicit public policy dilemmas and choices behind
a screen of technical jargon and marketing
rhetoric.

In all cases, there is a need to discuss and define
the role of government, its missions and the
modalities of delivery of public services. This need
has been comprehensively expressed by the
eGovernment subgroup of the eEurope Advisory
Group (composed of leaders and representatives
of national e-Government initiatives from some 30
European countries), which issued a set of
recommendations for modernising and stimulating
innovation in public administrations until 2010.
The document adopted by the subgroup, known
as the CoBrA Recommendations, called among
other things for an assessment of the role of
governments in delivering public value and the
related
necessary
actions
to
transform
organisations and adapt services and processes.
Such an assessment should provide valuable
insight for "reconsidering the services that are to
be provided – or not -, how service delivery is to
be organised including partnerships with the
private sector, which channels are to be used,
which processes are needed and which interorganisational forms of cooperation and
distribution of responsibilities are required”
(eGovernment subgroup of the eEurope Advisory
Group 2004).

At a general level, it is interesting to note that
many of the strategic objectives of current eGovernment programmes are similar to the
components of public sector reform advocated by
the OECD in 1995, i.e. in the early ages of eGovernment: greater focus on results, increased
value for money, devolution of authority and
enhanced flexibility, strengthened accountability
and control, client and service orientation,
strengthened capacity for developing strategy and
policy, and the introduction of competition (OECD,
1995, p. 25).

2.1 The role of Government
e-Government programmes and their implicit
public sector reform agendas carry with them an
even more fundamental issue, which is that of the
role of government itself. Beyond the
modernisation and efficiency priorities, the issue

www.ejeg.com

169

ISSN 1479-439X

Electronic Journal of e-Government Volume 3 Issue 4 2005 (167-174)

terms of partnership with the public sector, and
the necessary financial models – needs to be
further investigated.

2.2 Privatisation of the public sphere
The on-going reform of the public sector and redefinition of the role of government has entailed
changes in government functions and multiplied
both the number and type of entities participating
in the management and delivery of public
services. The traditional role of government as
manager of public affairs is thus evolving into a
coordination role, reflecting the liberal trend
towards less direct State participation in the
economic system. As a result of this progressive
privatisation of the public sphere - visible in the
transformation of service provision functions
traditionally managed by government – “many of
the aspects of the welfare state accepted as fact
for quite some time by European society have
been called into question” (Alabau 2004, p. 29).

3. Key policy issues
e-Government policies are both a sub-set and a
driver of government and public sector reform,
and their implementation raises or amplifies a
number of political issues in a wide number of
areas. Particularly, the implementation of the
transnational e-Government agenda raises
important high-level political and policy issues in
the following areas:
• Government and governance: ideology,
policy, strategy. Further privatisation of
the public sphere and the changing role of
government.
• Public administration reform: impact on
services, service delivery, service takeup, and the re-organisation of public
administrations.
In addition, e-Government programmes can have
an important impact in democracy practices
(political participation, citizen engagement, and
the future of representative democracy) as well as
on a number of policy areas, such as the
promotion of competitiveness (how to help both
businesses and workers be more competitive in a
globalised economy); justice and home affairs
issues (identification, data-sharing, border security
and the ‘surveillance society’); and technology
policy (interoperability, open standards, open
source software, and public procurement of ICT).

The transnational e-Government agenda calls for
an increased use of private sector intermediaries
in the delivery of public services, simultaneously
following and feeding the ongoing trend towards
outsourcing of traditional government functions
and privatisation of public services. The
increasingly important role of the private sector is
already clearly visible in the definition,
implementation and delivery of e-Government
services. It encompasses a wide array of
functions, such as strategic advice, training,
infrastructure, hardware and software provision,
service delivery and financing arrangements. For
instance, as the result of outsourcing, the number
of IT professionals in central government in the
United Kingdom fell from some 12,000 in the early
1990s to about 1,500 in 2004 (eGov monitor, 18
October 2004).

This implies that, in democratic societies,
stakeholders including legislators, citizens,
government and other groups need to decide
what kind of government they want in the future;
what the ideal balance between the public and the
private spheres should be; how public
administrations should be re-organized; how
public services should be delivered and over
which channels; how participative or direct
democracy should be; how much should privacy
be sacrificed for additional security or
personalised e-services; how best to use
information and communication technology to
foster competitiveness; and how to best manage
public funds when it comes to technology policy
and procurement of software by the public sector.

Researchers have highlighted that such a trend
towards private intermediation is expected to grow
not only as a result of political and economic
options but also as a result of increasing
technological complexity. It is thus likely that, as
part of this vision of “distributed e-Government”
(Centeno, Van Bavel and Burgelman 2004):
New players, both virtual (e-agents or e-brokers)
and physical (social actors, trainers, or citizens
themselves) will emerge as new technologies and
eGovernment applications are developed, to
address cognitive overload and functional or
procedural complexity. Even if usability is
improved, it is expected that not everyone will
have access to electronic public services –
intermediaries will be needed, i.e. people who
provide access to others, particularly in rural
areas.

All of these themes raise important questions –
implying a number of choices - within the
framework of the EU and its Member States. In
the following paragraphs the main issues related
to the impact of e-Government on government
and public administration are briefly analysed.

The potential roles of these new players –
including their accountability, their contribution to
the creation of public value, their own needs in

value, making citizens more likely both to accept
government action and to feel a sense of
association with it.

3.1 Government, governance, and the
creation of public value
One of the most interesting aspects of the current
trend towards the implementation of eGovernment services is that it raises – albeit
somehow inadvertently and rarely at the general
public level – a debate about aspects such as the
role of government, good governance, the mission
of public services and their relationship with the
private sector, and general policy priorities. In this
respect, it would be desirable to establish clear
links between e-Government programmes,
ideological frameworks, and public policy choices.

Public value is the ultimate goal of government
and, naturally, of e-Government as well. The
European Union and its Member States should
bear this in mind when formulating and
implementing their strategies and policies in the
current context of increased privatisation of the
public sphere. While privatisation may generate
public value, it is certainly not a miracle formula
for better government. The debate about the
changing role of government should not hide the
fact that generating public value must remain the
raison d’être of the public sector, even in times of
change.

Many observers see e-Government in the near
future as an enabler for better governance in
Europe, placing it

3.2 Public administration and sustainable
e-Government

at the core of public management modernisation
and reform, where technology is used as a
strategic tool to modernise structures, processes,
the regulatory framework, human resources and
the culture of public administrations to provide
better government, and ultimately, increased
‘public value’ (Centeno, Van Bavel and Burgelman
2004).

In terms of public administration reform, the
strategic goals of the transnational e-Government
agenda are closely derived from the “new public
management” theory developed and refined since
the 1970’s. Its main concept, managerialism,
implies the use of private sector techniques,
practices and philosophy in the activities of
government in order to make more with less. The
direct relationship between e-Government and the
new public management agenda has been clearly
established by the European Commission:

In our view, the creation of public value should be
at the heart of e-Government programmes and
specific projects, as well as at the centre of eGovernment pre- and post-project evaluation
efforts. Rather than being driven by cost-cutting
priorities that in many cases appear to be founded
on wishful and dubious estimates or by the
assumption that smaller government is intrinsically
better, more efficient, less expensive and
ultimately superior for a country’s economy - the
question of a possible correlation between the
size of government and economic growth has
been dividing economists for a long time and has
not been clearly established (Chevallerau 2005) the generation of significant public value should
be the key concept in guiding e-Government and
wider public sector reform programmes.

The change towards an organisation according to
the concept that the user is at the centre
(customer orientation), which was already at the
heart of the New Public Management approach, is
reinforced by eGovernment and made visible at
the front-office in personalised online services, a
one-stop approach and a life- (or business-) event
orientation (European Commission 2003, p.20).
Yildiz (2003) highlights that advocates of new
public management sought greater efficiency by
decentralisation, privatisation or outsourcing,
while simultaneously emphasising the need for
“transforming the culture of public organisations
by underlining the importance of perceiving
citizens as customers, concentrating on outputs
and outcomes rather than inputs, and providing
quality products and service in the public sector”.
However, because public administrations are not
private sector businesses and thus not mainly
driven by profit – i.e. they have to take into
account public interest factors and the creation of
public value - the economic and business primacy
proclaimed by managerialists carries the risk of
undermining public interest and the rights
associated with democratic citizenship and civic
engagement (DeLeon and Denhardt, 2000). The

Kearns (2004, p. 6) has clearly laid out the three
important sources of public value:
First, public value is created by the delivery of
high quality services. Perceptions of services are
driven by a series of factors such as their
availability, the satisfaction of users, the perceived
importance of the service and the fairness of its
provision and finally its cost. The second source
of public value is the achievement of outcomes
that are seen as desirable by the public such as
improvements in health, reduced poverty or
environmental improvements. Finally, trust in
public institutions is an important source of public

www.ejeg.com

171

ISSN 1479-439X

Electronic Journal of e-Government Volume 3 Issue 4 2005 (167-174)

EU and its Member States should thus leverage
e-Government initiatives and related training,
outsourcing and back-office re-organisation to
carefully implement public sector reforms that
make governments more responsive and efficient
while protecting its key public interest functions.

transformational programmes that motivate rather than alienate - civil servants at all
hierarchical levels. As pointed out by Centeno,
Van Bavel and Burgelman (2004), resistance to
change will pose significant challenges to
governments, which raise the need for further
research regarding tools and methods for
successful organisational transformation.

Current investments in e-Government in Europe
are not sustainable in the medium-term if their
effectiveness is not clearly demonstrated. Such
effectiveness cannot always be calculated purely
in financial terms because of the particularities of
the public sector (related for instance to service
pricing issues or to difficulties to measure public
value and associated outputs and outcomes). The
effectiveness and success of e-Government
initiatives should thus be measured against a
complex set of criteria (Kearns 2004): the
provision of services that are widely used,
Increased levels of user satisfaction, increased
information and choice available to service users,
greater focus on the services that the public
believes are the most important, increased
focusing of new and innovative services on those
most in need, reduced costs of service provision,
improved delivery of desired outcomes, and a
contribution to improved levels of trust between
citizens and public institutions.

4. Conclusion: Addressing the eGovernment agenda at the panEuropean level
To date, the implementation of e-Government in
Europe does not provide evidence that the role of
nation-states is eroding, nor does it provide
evidence that the role of the European Union is
irrelevant in this field. However, the barriers that
have been encountered to the formulation of a
coherent European e-Government policy do
demonstrate that there is a long way to go before
existing structures metamorphose into new
models, and national e-Government programmes
reveal that governments have thus far used ICT to
hold on to their sovereignty (Segedy 2005). Most
policy issues raised by the implementation of the
transnational e-Government agenda can and
should be tackled at national level. However,
some of them could also be effectively addressed
at European Union level.

In addition, e-Government policies will need to
take more account of demand side realities and
societal factors if they are to lead to the
successful take-up of e-Government services
(Burgelman and Clements 2003). In this respect,
delivery of significant value and service
improvements is also the key to increasing takeup of public electronic services by users, as
demonstrated by the results of a survey
commissioned by the Dutch Presidency of the
European
Public
Administration
Network
(Capgemini and TNO 2004). The survey revealed
that improvements to service – other than the
convenience of online access - were only
experienced by 30-40% of European eGovernment users. Thus, we believe that
governments should abandon the idea of
enforcing quantitative, quality-blind objectives
(such as putting all services online), and focus on
improving the quality of important services – both
online and offline – for which a user demand for
improvement and online delivery actually exists.

Although the EU has no competence over the
government
and
public
administration
organisation of its Member States – and therefore
no binding “policy” in this field – the European
Commission has a “proto-policy”, i.e. an “agenda”
that it promotes both via other areas of
competence, such as the internal market, and
through programmes such as eEurope 2005,
i2010, IDABC, and to a lesser extent,
research/development programmes such as IST
and eTEN. This e-Government agenda of the
European Commission simultaneously derives
from – and feeds into – what we have called the
transnational e-Government agenda.
In spite of its current lack of both a coherent eGovernment policy and effective competence in
the public administration domain, the Commission
has made a number of efforts, using instruments
from its Industrial, Trans-European Networks,
Research and Technological Development,
Internal Market, Competition and Regional
Development policies, to encourage national
public
administrations
to
implement
eGovernment, carry out organisational changes,
and improve public services and democratic
processes (Alabau 2004). For instance, the
controversial Directive on Services in the Internal
Market, proposed by the European Commission in

If e-Government and its associated reforms fail to
deliver a better public administration that provides
citizens and business with demonstrable,
measurable value, the use of ICT in government
could become, as argued by Toonen (2001), the
symbolic reform ideology of our times, similar to
the ideology of scientific management in the
1930’s and 1940’s. Success will require innovative

January 2004, calls for the mandatory
establishment by the end of 2008 of online single
points of contact for companies wishing to offer
services across borders. The proposed text sets
the obligation for Member States to allow
electronic completion of all necessary formalities
at the latest by 31 December 2008 (European
Commission 2004).

barriers. In this respect, the rationalisation of EU
e-Government initiatives, the development of
common technical standards and common
infrastructure services (for instance in the field of
e-identification
or
e-payments),
and
the
establishment of a European e-Government
competence centre for the effective sharing and
transfer of best practices could be set up as EUlevel policy priorities. In addition, there is a need
to better understand how e-Government could
support European integration – including future
enlargement scenarios – and the transformation
of the European bureaucratic apparatus.

The EU and its Member States need to perform a
true assessment of the needs for e-Government
implementation in Europe and determine how the
EU can help tackle common problems and

References
Alabau, A. (2004) The European Union and its eGovernment development policy, Fundación Vodafone España
Burgelman, J.C. and Clements, B. (2003) A New Paradigm for eGovernment Services, Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies (European Commission’s Joint Research Centre), Seville
Capgemini and TNO (2004) Does e-Government pay off?, report commissioned by the Dutch Presidency of the
European Public Administration Network
Centeno, C., Van Bavel, R. and Burgelman, J-C. (2004) eGovernment in the EU in the next decade: the vision and key
challenges, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (European Commission’s Joint Research Centre), Seville
Chevallerau, F-X. (2005) The impact of eGovernment on Competitiveness, Growth and Jobs, European Commission
(eGovernment Observatory), Brussels
DeLeon, L. and Denhardt, R. B. (2000) ‘The Political Theory of Reinvention’, Public Administration Review, 60(2): 89Dunleavy, P. and Margetts, H. (2000) The Advent of Digital Government: Public Bureaucracies and The State in the
Internet Age, Paper to the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C., 4
September 2000
eGov monitor (2004), ‘Whitehall's Incredible Shrinking IT Staff’, 18 October 2004
eGovernment subgroup of the eEurope Advisory Group (2004) ‘CoBrA Recommendations’ to the eEurope Advisory
Group: eGovernment Beyond 2005 - Modern and Innovative Public Administrations in the 2010 horizon, Amsterdam
European Commission (2004) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the
internal market, Brussels
European Commission (2003) The Role of eGovernment for Europe's Future, Communication from the Commission to
the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions, Brussels
Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man, Hamilton, Hamish, 1992.
Kearns, I. (2004) Public Value and E-Government, Institute for Public Policy Research, London
Michalopoulos, N. (2003) Administrative Reform in Europe: The Dialectical coexistence between Convergence and
Diversity, UNTC Occasional Papers Series, No 3/2003, Thessaloniki,
OECD (1995) Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries, OECD, Paris
Palan, R. Abbott, J. and Deans, P. (1996), State Strategies in the Global Political Economy, Pinter, London, 1996.
Segedy, S. (2005) ‘European e-Government Policy: Theory, Practice and Future Challenges’, MA thesis, Université Libre
de Bruxelles
Toonen, T. and Raadschelders, J. (1997) Public Sector Reform in Western Europe, paper presented at the Conference
on Comparative Civil Service Systems, School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), Indiana University,
Bloomington 5-8 April 1997
Toonen, T. (2001), ‘Public Sector reform in Comparative perspective: Creating open villages and reinventing the politics
of administration’, in: Pierre, J. and Peters, B. G. (eds), Politicians, Bureaucrats, and Administrative Reform: the
Changing Balance, London, Edgar Elgar, 2001
Yildiz, M. (2003) ‘Peeking into the Black Box of e-Government Policy-Making: Evidence from Turkey’, Paper prepared for
the 7th National Public Management Research Conference,
Georgetown University, Washington D.C., 9-11 October 2003

e-Government and State Reform: Policy Dilemmas for Europe

e-Government policies are both a sub-set and a driver of government and public sector reform, and their implementation raises or amplifies a number of political issues in a wide number of areas. Particularly, the implementation of the current transnational e-Government agenda raises important political issues, including the further privatisation of the public sphere and the changing role of government. Moreover, conflicting policy elements within the agenda magnify the need for more public debate on the desired outcomes of e-Government.